From: Luis Felipe Molina [mailto:lfmolinat@sulanet.net]Date: Friday, May 12, 2006 11:15 AMTo: vice_president@whitehouse.govSubject: LAW AND ORDER AT THE SOUTH BORDERPage 1 of 5Dear Mr. Vice President,The following is the contents of an email I sent on May 7, 2006, to an anchor of anational TV news program. I am sending these same comments to your Office and, in aseparate email, to the Office of the President, because these comments offer a plausiblealternative in securing law and order at the south border. These comments explain why it is not necessary to build a wall to control immigration inthe future and, with basis on the President’s Proposal for a Temporary Work Program,suggest slight shifts in mechanisms which may enhance effectiveness while focusingintensively in (1) freedom, (2) economics, (3) a changing world and (4) the leadershiprole of the US into the world of the near future.The email begins:Please read these five comments –specially the third one:(1) Retroactivity of a Legal Benefit Vs Legal AmnestyYou have emphasized that illegal aliens in the US are obviously in violation of Law. Youwould also point out that persons who came into the US illegally are not longer stayingillegally if now enjoy the benefit of TPS or have been otherwise entitled by Law to liveand work in the US. You have also emphasized that the US Government (i.e.: theExecutive Branch) cannot approve what is illegal. But, you would also point out that thePeople of the United States, by means of its representatives in the Legislative Branch,obviously exercise the right to decide what is illegal –with approval by the President. More than seldom, the National Congress has made legal what was illegal. For example,during the second decade of the 20th Century, distribution of alcoholic beverages wasdeclared illegal and then, later in 1933, that decision was reverted. Another example iswhen it was decided that voting by women would not longer be illegal.The point is that something undesired or illegal can be legitimately declared legal and become acceptable, at any point in time, if that’s good for the People. In the presentimmigration situation, either retroactivity or amnesty can be lawfully issued. Neitherdeclaration of legality needs to allow jumping ahead of people waiting in line forcitizenship and, as explained in comment (3) below, either way of granting legal statuswould not promote more immigration than the volume which nevertheless would beallowed under a strictly controlled process.